R. SAMSON Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case, wherein the petitioner who was appointed as 'Sweeper-cum-Packer' in the respondent Bank's services at Stationary Department of the local Head Office at Madras on compassionate grounds on the demise of his father, who worked as 'Packer' in the respondent Bank over a period of 26 years and died in harness, but the petitioner was deprived of the said compassionate appointment because of the litigation initiated by some third party claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee of their bank. The said litigation initiated by the third party came to an end in favour of the petitioner herein and his mother. But because of the interim injunction order passed in O.S.No.5569 of 1991 on the file of the court of the XVIII City Civil Court, Chennai, the said appointment was cancelled and the petitioner was relieved from the services of the Bank on 17/9/1992 i.e, within a period of four months from the date of his appointment on 27/5/1992.

(2.) Though the entire civil litigation that was initiated against the Mother of the petitioner and petitioner herein ended in favour of the petitioner by the year 2002, the claim of the petitioner was negatived by the respondents by an order dtd. 15/10/2005, on the ground that the very scheme for compassionate appointment has been scrapped in the respondent Bank and also on the ground that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered after a lapse of reasonable period of time. It is aggrieved by the said order dtd. 15/10/2005, as confirmed in appeal by an order dtd. 6/9/2006, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition in the year 2006. By the date of filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner was aged 42 years and now the petitioner has already crossed 60 years of age and also attained the age of superannuation.

(3.) As already noted above, the claim of the petitioner is for compassionate appointment. Though he was successful in securing such compassionate appointment as early as in the year 1992 itself, he was deprived of such appointment. But, the fact remains that the petitioner was found eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment, which was in vogue in the respondent Bank at the relevant point of time. But because of the civil litigation initiated by the third party, who was ultimately found to be nothing to do with the deceased father of the petitioner, the compassionate appointment that was secured by the petitioner was taken away by the respondent Bank. In view of the success of the petitioner and his mother in the civil litigation coupled with the fact that the petitioner was found eligible for compassionate appointment as early as in the year 1992 by the respondent Bank itself, on conclusion of the civil litigation, the petitioner would have been automatically re-appointed in the same post to which he was originally appointed in the year 1992 on compassionate grounds. Delay in that connection from 1992 to 2002 is absolutely an irrelevant factor because the fact that the eligibility of the petitioner was not in dispute in the year 1992.